Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > That'll just increase the amount of disagreement about news items > because it'll give people more pointless wording to argue over. After all, something I agree with.
> It's quite simple. If releasing a news item improves the user > experience of affected users more than not releasing it, the news item > should be released. What exactly in "Critical News Reporting" is unclear here? As everyone still talks about "News Reporting" it has to be the "Critical". Let's try to define it: "News items must only be for important changes that may cause serious upgrade or compatibility problems." (Source is GLEP 42) Let's get the next thing straight: Paludis will still work, after the upgrade, but it will produce warnings. So there are no problems at all, it still works just fine. Plus, a message saying "You still use the old config file format. Please replace * with */*" can hardly be misunderstood, in contrast to what you claimed when saying > Experience has shown that without a news item, many users will ask for > clarification or confirmation before making any changes, and with a > news item users will be reassured that they're doing the right thing > and that this is a deliberate change. (Ciaran McCreesh today on 23:06:31) If users dont trust the warning the code produces, why should they believe in a news item? It just aint a critical issue, unless Paludis will stop working unless the config is fixed, and deliberatly breaking it now, to get that news item anyway, is -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
